Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A good ruling here could be big. It's hard to imagine at this point they'd do otherwise.

There is room for all kinds of rulings. On DOMA, they might carve parts as unconstitutional, while other parts are, or, they could uphold the entire thing, or throw the whole thing out. On the other hand, the more important case might be the CA prop 8 case. Again, they might make a narrow, CA only ruling saying you can't vote an existing right away. On the other hand, they might rule that the lower court was wrong in meddling in a states law. Or, and this is the most interesting possibility, they might say that marriage is a fundamental right, and that all states will have to allow it.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Yeah you can slice up a dozen different rulings, but ultimately if they allude to anything about the California ruling to be unconstitutional, every other state is immediately in question.

I've been waiting for this for years. So glad to see it.

I am glad about the DOMA case, but if they had just declined to hear the CA case, then my friends could get married tomorrow. Now, it cannot happen until next summer, if, the court rules in their favor.

I'm old and would have preferred the sure thing for my friends.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

A good ruling here could be big. It's hard to imagine at this point they'd do otherwise.

It will be interesting.

Scalia is certainly not voting for it (I would be shocked):

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

That's from his dissent of Lawrence vs Texas.

No one has any idea about how Roberts will vote since he has never ruled on it, but it has been rumoured that he worked behind the scenes for a gay rights cause in that very same case.

Justice Thomas dissented in Lawerence and he dissented in Romer vs Evans. He concurred with Scalia's dissent:

[Amendment 2 is] a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are [...] unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced.

more:

"Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will. I dissent."

Interesting test for the Roberts court. Too much adherence to the conservative political agenda makes them a laughing foot note in the SCOTUS history book. Who wants to go down in history with Renquist, Scalia and Thomas as the knee-jerk conservative non-thinkers. Supreme Court Judges want to be the smartest guy in the room. Having a reputation as rubber stamp guy gets you an eternity of sarcastic footnotes in future cases. Cases where the future court calls you an idiot in legalese. Interesting to see if Roberts wants the Roberts court to be seen in the same light as the Renquist court.

Interesting test for the Roberts court. Too much adherence to the conservative political agenda makes them a laughing foot note in the SCOTUS history book. Who wants to go down in history with Renquist, Scalia and Thomas as the knee-jerk conservative non-thinkers. Supreme Court Judges want to be the smartest guy in the room. Having a reputation as rubber stamp guy gets you an eternity of sarcastic footnotes in future cases. Cases where the future court calls you an idiot in legalese. Interesting to see if Roberts wants the Roberts court to be seen in the same light as the Renquist court.

Doesn't seem to bother Thomas. He doesn't even ask a question.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?